Blaming Intel for how the world is (Moblin Zone)

Posted Oct 30, 2009 18:32 UTC (Fri) by jejb (subscriber, #6654)
In reply to: Blaming Intel for how the world is (Moblin Zone) by LinuxDevices
Parent article: Blaming Intel for how the world is (Moblin Zone)

> That was pretty much Linus's line of thinking, if I recall correctly, in
> deciding to tolerate binary drivers: he wasn't comfortable telling people
> what they had to do with *their* code.

Erm, actually not really. There have been many clarifications to this; e.g. here:

http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/067...

The bottom line is that for Linus to be happy with a binary module it mustn't be a derived work of linux; specifically must not be designed for linux or poke about with linux internals.

> If I write a driver, I might have good reasons for keeping it closed
> (companies do). Or, I might have no reason at all. But at the end of the
> day, the code is my property, and it's my decision to make.

Actually no: the code is only your property if it's not derivative of anything else. If you derive, you have to comply with the licence allowing that (in this case the GPL). What constitutes derivation is a fairly nebulous legal question, but you'll see in the above that Linus thinks it's anything designed to fit in with Linux kernel interfaces. That's pretty much every linux driver out there in the embedded space.

> I think it's great that so many of the posters here on this list
> understand that from a technical point of view, closed drivers *are*
> evil. Yet, if you believe in individual property rights, they're kind of
> a necessary one.

The property rights vs open source is a bit of a false dichotomy. The only way you can comply fully with the GPL without worrying about derivation problems is not to distribute anything based on your changes. The problem with that legally sound approach is that no distribution means no return on investment, even though it absolutely preserves your perceived rights of the code creator.

The object of a modern business isn't preserving individual property rights, it's achieving ROI.

When phrased correctly like this, I think one can make a convincing argument that, even ignoring the costs of the legal risk associated with being closed source, one can achieve more ROI by open sourcing drivers than by keeping them closed. In the case of the GMA500, part of that actual cost was the lack of a "just works" factor that caused market confusion leading to product returns.